Improving Team Performance and Output

I had the opportunity to reread some chunks of High Output Management by Andy Grove, a book I had read a few years ago. Management books that are timeless classics like this one are mentors that always have some fresh insights to offer whenever you find the time to consult with them.

A simple hypothesis from the book is that the output of a manager is the output of the team members under her direct or indirect supervision or influence. This is not about appropriating credit for good work done by colleagues or subordinates. Instead, it is a recognition of the fact that managers primarily deliver output through teams and not through individual effort. This also includes know-how managers who work individually on narrow areas of expertise. Their output, whether in terms of decisions, frameworks, standard operating procedures (SOPs) or new products, is not valuable in isolation but through implementation by other people.

Having understood this concept, it follows naturally that managers must spend effort on activities that improve productivity of certain individuals (subordinates, colleagues or business partners) for a long period of time or activities that can improve productivity of many people at the same time. Such activities are known as “high-leverage” activities because for these activities, organizational output per hour of managerial time input is much higher than when the manager spends time on individual tasks. The key to improve team output is therefore to consciously identify and spend time on high-leverage activities and move away from low-leverage activities (largely through standardization and delegation).

When it comes to improving the output of people under a manager’s direct or indirect influence, it is important to understand the key reasons for poor output. As Andy Grove writes in High Output Management,

When a person is not doing his job, there can only be two reasons for it. The person either can’t do it or won’t do it — he is either not capable or not motivated.

This insight can dramatically focus a manager’s efforts. All one has to do to improve the output of a subordinate is to motivate and train. At a fundamental level, there is actually nothing else to do!

Thinking about this at a deeper level, the inability to do one’s job (the “can’t do it” case) can stem from four reasons:

1. The person doesn’t know how to do the job assigned (skill deficiency)
2. The person doesn’t have access to adequate information to get the job done and doesn’t know where to look for it (information deficiency)
3. The person is not authorized (or perceives he is not authorized) to seek certain information or carry out certain tasks (systems deficiency)
4. The person doesn’t have the organizational support or network to seek relevant information or get some tasks done (organizational network deficiency)

As a manager, if one finds that the job is not being done because the person can’t do it, it’d help to check which of the four reasons primarily explains the inability and address it accordingly. For example, if a subordinate has a skill deficiency, it might make sense to conduct a one-on-one training session to impart the relevant skills. On the other hand, if there is a systems deficiency, the manager can facilitate the provision of necessary system access.

If the reason for not performing a job is motivation (the “won’t do it” case), it is important again to the understand the reasons for lack of motivation. In my experience, there could be five broad reasons for lack of motivation:

1. Vagueness of Purpose: In this situation, the subordinate is not clear about the broader objectives or goals to be achieved. Lack of knowledge about end objectives stifles creativity and requires subordinates to look up to their bosses for direction at every unexpected occurrence. In such cases, though many people may technically be working in the team, only one brain (the boss’ brain) is doing all the thinking. This inevitably pushes the boss into spending his or her time on a lot of low-leverage activities. Delegating without clarifying purpose would not amount to delegating at all as far as knowledge work is concerned. Therefore, whenever you think of delegating something, spend a few more minutes to make sure that the subordinate understands the purpose of the task assigned and not just the proximate action to be performed.
2. Deficient Hygiene Factors: This case follows from Herzberg’s classic two-factor theory which states that reasons for job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction could be fundamentally different. For example, you might feel annoyed at work because the administrative office doesn’t provide good quality stationery on time. But you’d scarcely notice if the administrative office diligently and promptly fulfilled your stationery needs. Thus, adequate stationery provision is a hygiene factor. It will not motivate the person to work but lack of this factor will demotivate the person. Whenever you come across a general lack of motivation despite having a clearly defined purpose, it might help to look at such hygiene factors in the workplace.
3. Destructive Team Dynamics: This factor comes into play when there is excessive and visible competition within the team. Since management is a team game, it’d make sense to have the team pull in the same direction. But if personal objectives are at odds with team objectives, sooner or later, each team member will sacrifice the interests of the team to further their own interests. Whenever such behavior is predominant, a new team member will either find a sub-group or coalition to attach to or feel helpless trying to adapt to the team dynamics, thereby losing motivation.
4. Inadequate Social Rewards: Modern organizations place a lot of emphasis on SMART goals and aligning monetary incentives visibly to such goals. However, social rewards such as recognition, public appreciation and building a feeling of community aided by a shared purpose go a long way towards motivating employees. Over-emphasis on objectivity in evaluating employees can lead to a loss of motivation.
5. Conflict of Personal Priorities or Values: When organizational goals or values are not in sync with those of the employee, it will inevitably lead to first an emotional disconnect, then a functional disconnect and finally a formal separation. Sometimes, personal priorities may lead to loss of motivation — for example, if your family stays in a different city and you have to travel 1,000 km every weekend to be with your family. Organizations may be constrained in such situations but working to tailor policies to accommodate the personal priorities of strategically important employees will go a long way towards sustaining motivation.

Hopefully, some or all of the above points will ring a bell in your routine professional life. Do share your thoughts with me through the comments section.